On 16 October 2014 09:35, Thomas Vandahl <t...@apache.org> wrote: > On 16.10.14 02:06, sebb wrote: >> On 16 October 2014 00:47, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote: >>> Perso I don' get the point to use this version number at the end of >>> the artifactId >> >> The idea is that if the package name has to be changed again, i.e. to >> org.apache.commons.jcs2, then the artifactId would become commons-jcs2 >> so that they agree with each other. > > I consider this rule a bit strict, to be frank. I'd like to think that > the problem of a broken API could be solved differently (by deliberately > renaming API classes for example) but i can live with it for now.
Renaming API classes will break compatibility unless one keeps the old classes as well. Creating new classes and deprecating the old ones is a valid strategy, but if one ever wants to get rid of the deprecated classes, it is necessary to make a complete break. It is essential that a given class name only appears in a single Maven (groupId,artifactId) pair, otherwise jar hell may result. It is also essential that within a Maven pair, classes are not dropped between versions (unless the class is not part of the public API) otherwise there will be binary compatibility issues. > Bye, Thomas. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
